Wasp

Such a beautifully made film, raw and gutsy. The strength of the film lies within the actors, writers and directors portrayal of the characters. This is life or at least a part of it as seen from the perspective of the third person, a keyhole glimpse into a small part of life of a young mother. The film is so real it is unnervingly real. I'm not going to give away any spoilers but it is a must to watch. If you liked other contemporary British films such as Rita, Sue and Bob Too, Kes, Poor Cow, A Taste of Honey, Sweet Sixteen, Cathy Come Home and Angela's Ashes, then your going to love this. Yes this is one for my collection if and when it comes out on DVD. 10/10.

It's amazing to me how such a short film could carry just as much emotion and power as a feature length one. Natalie Press was outstanding (as always) as well as the child actors/actresses who were all adorable and completely believable. I almost forgot that this was in any way an adaptation by the brilliant Andrea Arnold. With a story that hits home not because of it's grittiness, but because of it's honesty,.This one is one that viewers won't forget easily. And that's what writers and film makers should all strive for.

WASP is a thoroughly unpleasant film due to its subject matter. The film is about a poor mother with four small children who is simply unfit to take care of them--let alone herself. Though technically an adult, Zoë is completely irresponsible and selfish. As you watch her hungry children and her ambivalence towards them, you'll find the film very shocking. Now I don't think that she hates her kids--it's just that her needs trump all others and right now her need to to hook up with a man. Now despite having these kids (and the oldest looks to be only about 7 or 8), she drags them to the pub and tells them to wait outside and leaves the oldest one in charge. And the children wait, and wait, and wait for many hours--often playing in the street to amuse themselves and starving while mom is inside buying drinks for her date.

This film earned the Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film and it deserved it even though it was hard to watch and was so very unpleasant. There were two main reasons I liked the film. First, it was completely unflinching in how it showed a neglectful mother and her kids--you couldn't help but feel sorry for the kids and you wanted to scream out loud towards the end of the film when they are in such grave danger. Second, I really appreciated how the film didn't take a definite stand (right wing or left) and simply showed the family without commentary or trying to shove an agenda down your throat.

The film is very crude and harsh, but all this is necessary to accurately portray this lifestyle. This, combined with the shocking images make this a terrible film to show children, but an amazing film for anyone else. I dare anyone to watch this film and not be affected.

The development of lightweight portable 16mm camera equipment about 1960 made possible a new style of documentary film called "Direct Cinema". Instead of the traditional scripted (obviously fictionalized) method, in this new style the filmmakers do not involve themselves in the action. The camera being all seeing and unobtrusive-if the camera is not actually hidden the subjects become so used to it that they ignore its presence.

What makes "Wasp" so unique is its almost seamless fusion of the two documentary styles. Writer/director Andrea Arnold scripts a fictional story intended to look so authentic that it can pass as direct cinema.

This is done so effectively that not only is a casual viewer unable to tell whether it is fact or fact-based fiction, but in most cases actually assumes the story is authentic and the characters real. The acting (particularly by the children) is so well directed and edited that you feel certain that these are real people.

There is a bit of a false note in that the actress (Natahlie Press) who plays the mother is a bit too attractive; although they try to detune her appearance this factor still raises early suspicions . The only other false note is that at no time does anyone look directly into the camera, something inevitable when working with non-actors. But even this is not an infallible indicator because it would have been possible though careful editing to effectively trim out these behaviors.

The appearance of the wasp (a metaphor for the risks of growing up in this type of environment) is surreal enough to tip off the viewer to the true nature of the film, but it occurs so late in the production that it does not spoil much of a viewer's roller-coaster experience.

The 23-minute "Wasp" is a project of The UK Film Council's decision to select and fund the making of new short films by talented, but as yet unknown directors. Apparently the project is very open with few rules and structure, each director is given $50,000 by the project.

"Wasp" was shot on a council estate (a public housing project) and is intended to be a realistic but fictional glimpse into one day in the life of a fairly "typical" unmarried mother (insert British white trash here). In these public high-rises the adult occupants dream about the lives of David and Victoria Beckham and the children aspire to trips to McDonalds (especially attractive when their kitchen only contains moldy bread and white sugar).

Because Zoe (Press) fears her four young children will be taken from her, she drags them along to a pub where she is meeting a potential new boyfriend. They are not permitted in the pub and must stay outside with the baby. While she plays pool and gets romanced the children wait outside, bored and hungry. They manage to invent a few games to amuse themselves. The oldest daughter, who looks to be about eight, is already more mature than the mother and resourcefully scrounges for food.

Although a bit heavy-handed in making its points, the film nicely avoids a preachy tone. I found it absolutely riveting and its Oscar well deserved.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Zoë is a single mum with four kids living on a council estate. Things are rough for the family, with little money to spend on basics such as food and the like although Zoë doesn't really help herself by what she does. Asked out to the pub by Dave, Zoë has to try a place for her kids so she can meet him up.

Perhaps not worthy of the status of being an Oscar winner this is still an interesting and well-made film. Another reviewer on this site has commented that the film can probably be interpreted to suit your politic leaning but I thought that was actually a good aspect of it because it is so ambiguous. Is Zoe a victim of her surroundings or is she just a selfish, council-estate chav? On the surface it is an easy question to answer but, although I did lean towards the latter, the film did make me think about her situation, her poor options and the depressing future that her kids have in front of them. The inability to come down on either side of the fence does take away from the film a bit but I found that the thoughts it gave me covered for it; although I can also see why it would the subject would bother some viewers – after all, are we really expected to be engaged by a lead character that we would move cities to avoid? Press plays her well regardless though. She is totally convincing and deserves credit for being so natural and not allowing the sentimental leaning of the script to turn her into a sympathetic character. Dyer is a good face to have involved and is his usual good value in a wide boy character. The kids are very good and are the heart of the film, delivering depressingly natural depictions of council estate kids – f**ked from birth.

Overall this is an uneven film that will be taken different ways by different viewers but will likely bother many with its forgiving look at a real piece of white trash. However it is still thought provoking and that makes it worth seeing along with very good direction and generally strong performances.